Carl W. Kenney II is an award winning columnist and novelist. He is committed to engaging readers into a meaningful discussion related to matters that impact faith and society. He grapples with pondering the impact faith has on public space while seeking to understand how public space both hinders and enhances the walk of faith.

Monday, August 27, 2012

Does Hampton's decision to ban dreadlocks mean a person with them can't fit in corporate America? Change the culture

It’s amazing how many people want to talk about
hair. My blog from last week generated
the most hits in the history of the Rev-elution (close to 10,000). It received the most comments ever, and was
reposted on Facebook by 195 people.

Most readers are irritated that the business school at
Hampton University imposed a ban on male students with cornrows and locs. It is significant to note that the sanction
only applies to male students, a detail missed in my previous blog. Some may consider the acceptance of women
with locs and cornrows a small victory.
That factor merely draws greater attention to the difficulty black men
face in gaining acceptance in mainline culture.

Hampton, and other HBCU’s, are faced with the tough
challenge of proving they have adequately prepared students to assimilate into
a job market where they are the minority. They are entrusted with proving
students are different from what popular culture reflects as normative among
black men. Students may possess the
grades that merit a job in corporate America, but what about the rest?

Hampton’s decision is held in contempt among those
searching for ways to affirm and celebrate the unique culture of black
America. One way we do that is with
hair. Hair has always been used to
measure a black person’s willingness to let go of afrocentric identity by
placing the culture of business above everything else.

Be it the afros of the 70s or the braids of the 80s,
black hair has been held in contempt due to the way it draws attention to black
radicalism. The movement toward
celebrating black identity is correlated with embracing different ways to
manage hair. The journey has been filled
with indecision. It has been a work in
progress. The more black people seek to
be free, the more they battle attacks against the way they use hair to reflect
that freedom.

Thus, we have a case of conflicting agendas. Hampton is in the business of preparing
students for the world after graduation.
They have to prove to potential employers that they have trained
students on the inside and out for corporate success. Locs and cornrows are viewed as a form of
rebellion indicating an unwillingness to play by the rules of the game. Why do black people have to pick personal
success over racial pride? Why can’t we
have both?

White women will argue they have to adjust to similar
rules. Their dress is monitored in a way
that forces change. White men contend
that facial hair, of any type, is forbidden in corporate American. In other
words, everyone has to play by the rules.
It’s not just a black thing, its part of the life of corporate America.

There is some truth to that assessment. Most companies are searching for people who
fit the corporate image. The problem is
with how that corporate image can serve in the dismantling of the celebration
of legitimate cultural expression. The
point of my last blog was a simple one.
As a man who has locs, I take offense at any effort to curtail my right
to celebrate my culture. If it is a
hairstyle, cut it off. If it is more
than a hairstyle, it’s difficult to let it go due to how so much of my identity
is attached to the decision to loc my hair.

The matter of identity is complex, and often forces
the question of how personal identity is supported and undermined by perceptions
of identity. How much of how a person
understands their own identity is wrapped up in how other people view what that
means? If one becomes trapped in
reconstructing their lives based on the assumptions of others, then the power
of what it means to be a person is given to others to define. A person should never negotiate their right
to define what it means to be human.

The decision to ban locs uncovers the matter of acceptable
black masculinity. Black men are confronted
with the obstacle of overcoming the negative images of other black men. The business school at Hampton University
hopes to prepare male students with the burden of proving they are different
from the black men portrayed in popular culture.

It’s not enough to be educated, black men have to look
the part of being educated. They have to
fight the assumptions made by those who meet them for the first time. Black men are constantly fighting to overcome
the mistakes of those who look like them.
Sadly, hairstyles and dress become variables in defining legitimacy
within a culture that has loads of stereotypes to work through before giving
you a chance. In essence, they have to prove they are not what you think you
see when you meet them.

The business school at Hampton is one of many
institutions fighting to prepare students to overcome the hostility and
assumptions black men face when they are interviewed for jobs in corporate
America. Administrators are aware of the
tough road facing those who graduate from their school. HBCU’s were formed to bring legitimacy to
those willing to make the transition into the white world of business and
politics.

The black Church was used to teach black folks how to
dress in the world of white privilege.
The church taught proper conduct, how to speak and dress as a way to
legitimize the work of the former slaves.
Hampton’s decision to ban locs and cornrows continues a long legacy of
black institutions working to educate youth on proper conduct and dress in the
world outside the black neighborhood.

Should we blame Hampton for the world our youth face?
No. I don’t blame Hampton. I blame the
rest of us for failing to redefine legitimate culture for those outside the
black community. If the black community
fails to embrace that which is meaningful, then how will others celebrate our
efforts to cling to our own heritage?

There are divergent opinions related to what that
means. Some regard my locs as a foul
thing that needs to be cut. Others
recognize it as my desire to connect to a long history of holy men who wore
locs as a sacrifice to God. My hair is
more than a hairstyle. It is part of my
spiritual practice. To ask me to cut them
invalidates what it means for me to enter into a special bond with God in order
to purge myself of all forms of vanity.

Yes, hair is a personal decision. In some cases hair is used to define a person’s
character. Often that determination is
measured with unfounded assumptions. In
some cases, the assumption is true.

The only way around it all is to get past all that
hair to get to know the person. Maybe
that takes too much work. It’s easier to
simply fit in with the corporate image than to invest the time in getting to
know the person.

Birth of a Nation

Total Pageviews

Carl W. Kenney II

Carl was named the best serious columnist of 2011 by the North Carolina Press Association for his work with the News & Observer's community paper The Durham News and in 2016 by the Missouri Press Association for his columns in the Columbia Missourian. He is a columnist with the News & Observer and Co-Executive Producer of "God of the Oppressed" an upcoming documentary film on black liberation theology. He is a former Adjunct Professor at the University of Missouri - School of Journalism and Adjunct Instructor at Duke University, the Center for Documentary Studies. He received his Bachelor’s degree in Journalism from the University of Missouri-Columbia. He furthered his education at Duke University and attained a Master of Divinity. He was named a Fellow in Pastoral Leadership Development at the Princeton Theological Seminary on May 14, 2005. He is a freelance writer with his commentary appearing in The Washington Post, Religious News Services,The Independent Weekly and The Durham Herald-Sun. Carl is the author of two novels: “Preacha’ Man” and the sequel “Backslide”.
He has led congregations in Missouri and North Carolina